Warrant issued for Lindsay Lohan

Beverly Hills, California, police want Lindsay Lohan to turn herself in on an arrest warrant issued Friday.

A police official told CNN on Saturday that officers will be on the lookout for the actress-singer until she does so.

It wasn't clear why Lohan was being sought, but the warrant, issued by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in Beverly Hills, apparently stems from her 2007 convictions for drunken driving, Beverly Hills police Sgt. Mike Foxen said. She is serving three years' probation for those convictions.

"We're hoping that she will turn herself in," Foxen said.

Calls to Lohan's publicist and manager have not been returned.

Once arrested, Lohan, 22, could go free after posting a $50,000 bond, Foxen said.

Lohan was arrested twice in 2007 on driving under the influence charges, with a cocaine possession charge in the second incident.

The first arrest in May came after Lohan lost control of her Mercedes-Benz convertible and struck a Beverly Hills curb.

Just two weeks after checking out of a Malibu drug and alcohol rehab facility, she was arrested again in July 2007 after a woman called Santa Monica police saying Lohan was trying to run her down in a car.

A judge sentenced Lohan to three years' probation after she entered guilty and no-contest pleas to the charges. She served less than two hours in jail.

Lohan's acting career, which started at age 10 on a soap opera, took off on the big screen a year later when she played identical twins in Disney's "The Parent Trap."

Since then, she has starred in at least a dozen movies, including "Mean Girls" and "Georgia Rule" with Jane Fonda in 2007.

Her pop music recording career, boosted by her movie roles, has floundered. She last released an album in 2005

AIG's insistence on bonuses raises ire in Washington

White House officials and some members of Congress reacted strongly Sunday to news that insurance giant AIG had intended to pay out $165 million in bonuses and compensation. The company has received at least $170 billion in federal bailout money.

Under pressure from the Treasury, AIG scaled back the bonus plans and pledged to reduce 2009 bonuses -- or "retention payments" -- by at least 30 percent. That did little to temper outrage at the initial plan, however.

In a letter Sunday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold urged the Obama administration to explore "legal options" to prevent the millions in AIG payouts.

"I write to ask why any bonuses would be legally required, given the company's abysmal performance," says Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

Feingold asked whether the bonuses could be canceled or recouped from recipients, and whether the administration will sue AIG executives for breaching their duties to shareholders

"There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what's happened at AIG is the most outrageous," Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, told ABC's "This Week."

"What that company did, the way it was not regulated, the way no one was watching, what's proved necessary, it is outrageous."

And on "Fox News Sunday," White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was "really upset by the news."

"He stepped in and berated them, got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this," Goolsbee said.

In a letter to Geithner, obtained Saturday by CNN, AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy said his company was taking steps to limit compensation in AIG Financial Products -- the British-based unit responsible for issuing the risky credit default swaps that have brought the company to the brink of collapse. The default swaps amount to insurance against losses from bad loans, which have increased dramatically since the U.S. housing boom peaked.

In the letter to Geithner, Liddy said the unit's 25 highest-paid contract employees will reduce their salaries to $1 this year and all other officers in the unit will reduce their salaries by 10 percent. Other "non-cash compensation" will be reduced or eliminated. But he told Geithner that some bonus payments are binding legal obligations of the company, and "there are serious legal, as well as business consequences for not paying."

Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told Fox that bailout recipients should have to follow stricter compensation rules, and said Congress should look into whether the bonuses are "legally recoverable."

"We can't just violate legal obligations, I understand that," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "But I do want to find out at what point these legal obligations were incurred. Who said, and at what point, 'We're going to give these bonuses no matter what?' And I do think it's inappropriate for those people to stay in power at that company."

Frank said that if banks complain that the Obama administration has made things too tough, "They can give the money back. We made that easy."

Goolsbee said AIG was following "a policy that's really not sensible, is obviously going to ignite the ire of millions of people."

"We've done exactly what we can do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again," Goolsbee said. Summers told ABC that the administration was taking "every legal step possible to limit those bonuses."

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, told "Fox News Sunday" he believes it's important to know whether the bonuses are actually commission payments for products sold by brokers, saying he would withhold judgment until that is clarified.

However, "I do think that these entities that are receiving government money, our money, I do think they have to play by a different set of rules," Corker said. Hopefully, those different rules will discourage companies from accepting bailout funds, he said.

Liddy, however, makes clear in the letter that he took steps to limit his employees' compensation with trepidation. He said the company will have trouble attracting and retaining "the best and the brightest ... if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury."

AIG lost a record $62 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008. It has more than 74 million insurance policies issued in 130 countries around the world

Paris ends four-decade Nato rift

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced his country is to return to Nato's military command, reversing four decades of self-imposed exile.

Mr Sarkozy confirmed the decision in a speech to defence experts at the Ecole Militaire staff college in Paris.

President Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of Nato's integrated military command in 1966, saying it undermined France's sovereignty.

Critics say France will now be no more than "a clone of Great Britain".

But Mr Sarkozy said there was no sense in France - a founder member of Nato - having no say in the organisation's decisions on military strategy.

"This rapprochement with Nato ensures our national independence," said Mr Sarkozy. "To distance ourselves would limit our independence and our room for manoeuvre.

He went on: "We have to be progressive. A solitary nation is a nation that has no influence whatsoever.

"We need strong diplomacy, a strong defence and a strong Europe."

He said Nato remained a central element of France's security and defence policies, but stressed that he would not give up the country's independent nuclear deterrent.

Mr Sarkozy is expected to formalise the move with a letter to Nato before the alliance celebrates its 60th anniversary next month with a summit in the French city of Strasbourg.

Military action

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer warmly welcomed Mr Sarkozy's announcement.

"[France's] full participation in all the civil and military decision-making and planning processes cannot but strengthen the alliance further," he said.

Correspondents say France's "independence" from Nato is dearly treasured by many French, and Mr Sarkozy's move has provoked a furore among those who worry it will now have to bow to US dominance.

The great fear, says the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby in Paris, is that France will now be at the beck and call of the US, and may well be dragged into conflicts in which it did not want to be involved.

"Nothing today justifies returning to Nato military command," said the leader of the opposition Socialists, Martine Aubry.

"There's no hurry, no fundamental need, except for this Atlanticism that's becoming an ideology."

But Defence Minister Herve Morin rejected claims France would now be forced to go along with the US on issues like the war with Iraq, which it vehemently opposed.

Germany, he noted, has remained fully integrated in Nato yet opposed the war.

Renewing France's relations with Nato "will benefit the alliance, benefit Europe and benefit France", Mr Morin said. "It will be done without calling into question the independence of France."

Indeed, it would allow France to take a greater role in shaping military strategy, he argued.

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said France's re-entry into NATO would benefit security in Europe.

"I think it's very important that France returns to the alliance completely," he said.

The US also reacted positively to Mr Sarkozy's announcement.

"We are delighted that after a 43-year absence, France is back where it belongs, in the command structure of the alliance it helped found," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

"Although their troops have been bravely fighting alongside ours in Afghanistan, it is welcome news to have them fully re-integrated in all Nato military matters."

While in 1966 France withdrew from Nato's decision-making core, its nuclear weapons structure and planning committee, it never left the alliance itself.

Indeed, it has been one of the most active members, supplying troops under allied command in Bosnia, Kosovo and in Afghanistan, where it has suffered significant losses.

Analysts say France has actually been gradually moving closer to the heart of Nato since the end of the Cold War.

New America law eases Cuba sanctions

US President Barack Obama has signed into law a government spending bill that will ease some of Washington's economic sanctions on Cuba.

He said the bill was imperfect because Congressmen had added pet projects to the $410bn package that will fund government spending until September.

Cuban-Americans will be allowed to travel to the island once a year and send more money to relatives there.

Curbs on sending medicines and food have also been eased.

The legislation was earlier approved by the Senate after clearing the House of Representatives last month.

The legislation overturns rules imposed by the Bush administration which limited travel to just two weeks every three years, and confined visits to immediate family members.

President Obama has indicated he would be open to dialogue with Cuba's leaders.

But he has said that, like previous American presidents, he will only consider a full lifting of the embargo once Cuba's communist government makes significant moves such as the holding of democratic elections.

Cuba's President Raul Castro has said he is prepared to negotiate with the new US administration, providing there are no preconditions.

Funding fears for Lebanese de-mining

Rasha is her mother's biggest helper.

Seated on the floor of their tiny house in Marake, a village in southern Lebanon, the girl slouches over a bag of thyme placed in front of her.

Her thin, well-trained fingers move fast as she sorts the herbs, separating leaves from the stems.

For Rasha's family, thyme is the main source of income. Her father, Mohammad, harvests the wild herbs, while women sort, dry and sell them.

But Rasha hates the chore, and the memories it brings back.

She was 15 when, two years ago, she picked out a round shiny object from a bag of thyme her father had brought home. It exploded right in the room.

"I'd heard of cluster bombs, I had seen posters of them in school - but how could I imagine that something like that was possible?" she asks.

Her mother, Alia, looks away as Rasha pulls up her jeans and shows me the result of the explosion - her left leg is missing.

"I can't look at it," the woman sighs. "I cry every time I give her a bath. I am worried how it will affect her future." Over the last two years, the bombs have killed and injured hundreds across southern Lebanon.

After the 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, the international community poured funds into clearing millions of cluster bombs that the Israeli army had dropped on the region.

Once on the ground, cluster bombs disperse into hundreds of bomblets or sub-munitions, making them even more dangerous and vicious than landmines.

'More difficult'

International efforts to ban cluster bombs gained new force after Israel's use of the weapons in 2006 and a new treaty banning the weapons was signed last year.

Major producers of cluster bombs such as the United States, China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India have rejected the pact and are refusing to sign it.

But now the international community is running out of funds to clear the mines. The combination of the global economic crisis and new conflicts elsewhere means that donor countries are no longer giving de-mining organisations in Lebanon the funds they need.

"It's more and more difficult for us to get the funds," says Claus Nelson, the head of the Lebanon operations for Danish Church Aid - one of the many demining organisations that work in Lebanon.

"The focus of the donors is now elsewhere, Lebanon is no longer in the news - and also there is less money to go around because of the global problems," he says.

The lack of money has recently forced Claus Nelson's organisation to cut down the number of teams in the field from five to two.

Some other organisations have been forced to pull out from South Lebanon altogether.

But while the de-mining groups complain about the lack of funds, some argue that the scale-down is justified.

No money

When de-mining operations in Lebanon began two years ago, more than 4,000 hectares of Lebanon's soil were contaminated.

Now, there are only 1,200 hectares left to de-mine - and even though this means tens of thousands of cluster bombs, munitions and mines, some believe that with so much of Lebanon cleared, the donors are right to channel the money elsewhere.

But Claus Nelson argues the donor countries should honour the commitments they have made.

"For us to be able to say that we have completed our job, we should not leave until all of Lebanon is cleared," Mr Nelson said.

The price of cutting costs is high. Taher, one of the de-miners, showed me a recently cleared field, marked by red ribbon.

Beyond it, he says, the area could still be full of cluster bombs, but they have been told to leave it - there is no money for clearance. What worries Taher, he says, is that there is a school nearby.

A loud explosion punctuates Taher's words and echoes through the rolling hills and olive groves of the valley.

A team of de-miners nearby have just demolished another batch of cluster bombs of the same kind that exploded in Rasha's bag of thyme.

An old farmer leans on his stick as he watched the smoke rise above the trees.

He tells me he can see his olive grove from the top of the hill but is unable to reach it because of the cluster bombs.

Two years on since the end of the war, cluster bombs still affect tens of thousands of lives in south Lebanon.

And as the global funds dry up, many here fear that they will continue to do so for a long time to come.

Barack Obama condemns Darfur expulsions

US President Barack Obama has described as "unacceptable" the expulsion of foreign aid workers from the Sudanese region of Darfur last week.

Mr Obama was speaking at the White House after his first talks with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Sudan expelled 13 aid agencies after the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of President Omar al-Bashir for alleged war crimes.

The expelled groups deny Sudan's claim that they have a political agenda.

During his talks with Mr Ban, Mr Obama said: "We have a potential crisis of greater dimensions than we already saw."

The United Nations has said kicking out the humanitarian groups puts more than one million lives at risk.

Defiance

Some 2.7 million people are receiving aid in Darfur after being forced from their homes.


The UN estimates that 300,000 people have died, since black African rebels took up arms in 2003 against the Arab-dominated regime demanding a greater share of resources and power.

President Bashir on Sunday made a defiant visit to Darfur and warned all foreign workers to obey Sudan's laws or face expulsion.

The ICC issued a warrant for Mr Bashir on 4 March, accusing him of two counts of war crimes and five crimes against humanity in Darfur.

It is the court's first indictment against a serving president.

Mr Bashir has always denied that his government helped mobilise the Janjaweed militias accused of the worst atrocities against civilians.

Sudan, the African Union and the Arab League have all urged the UN Security Council to use its powers to defer the arrest warrant, saying it could further destabilise Darfur.

After meeting Mr Bashir in Khartoum on Monday, AU Commission chairman Jean Ping said: "It is clear that the decision of the ICC undermined and jeopardised... reconciliation in Darfur."

Pentagon says Chinese vessels harassed U.S. ship

PENTAGON -- The Pentagon said Monday that Chinese ships harassed a U.S. surveillance ship Sunday in the South China Sea in the latest of several instances of "increasingly aggressive conduct" in the past week.

During the incident, five Chinese vessels "shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable, in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the U.S. ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters," the Pentagon said in a written statement.

The crew members aboard the vessels, two of which were within 50 feet, waved Chinese flags and told the U.S. ship to leave the area, the statement said.

"Because the vessels' intentions were not known, Impeccable sprayed its fire hoses at one of the vessels in order to protect itself," the statement said. "The Chinese crewmembers disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet."

After the Impeccable alerted the Chinese ships "in a friendly manner" that it was seeking a safe path to depart the area, two of the Chinese ships stopped "directly ahead of USNS Impeccable, forcing Impeccable to conduct an emergency 'all stop' in order to avoid collision," the statement said.

"They dropped pieces of wood in the water directly in front of Impeccable's path."

A Pentagon spokesman called the incident "one of the most aggressive actions we've seen in some time. We will certainly let Chinese officials know of our displeasure at this reckless and dangerous maneuver."

He said the Chinese crew members used poles to try to snag the Impeccable's acoustic equipment in the water. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing lodged a protest over the weekend with the Chinese government, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

The Impeccable's crew is composed primarily of civilians and the ship itself is not armed, the spokesman said.

No one at the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing answered CNN's telephone calls seeking comment, and there were no stories about the incident in Chinese media.

The 281.5-foot Impeccable is one of six surveillance ships that perform military survey operations, according to the Navy. It is an oceanographic ship that gathers underwater acoustic data, using sonar.

It has a maximum speed of 13 knots -- or about 15 mph -- but it travels 3 knots, or 3.5 mph, when towing its array of monitoring equipment. It carries a crew of 20 mariners, five technicians and as many as 20 Navy personnel.

The Chinese ships involved were a Navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers, the statement said.

The Pentagon cited three previous instances of what it described as harassment, the first of which occurred Wednesday, when a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a spotlight to illuminate the the ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious.

In that incident, which occurred about 125 miles from China's coast in the Yellow Sea, the Chinese ship "crossed Victorious' bow at a range of about 1,400 yards" in darkness without notice or warning. The following day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.

The next day, a Chinese frigate approached Impeccable "and proceeded to cross its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards," which was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet and a range of 100 to 300 feet, the statement said.

"The frigate then crossed Impeccable's bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400-500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions."

And on Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, "calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or 'suffer the consequences,' " the statement said.

In 2007, the Pentagon filed a formal protest with Beijing over its refusal to allow a U.S. aircraft carrier to make a Thanksgiving port call in Hong Kong so its crew could spend the American holiday with relatives and over its refusal to grant refuge to two U.S. minesweeping ships that were caught in a storm.

And in 2001, an EP-3 surveillance plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet and made an emergency landing on China's Hainan Island, where the Chinese held the plane's 24 American crew members for 11 days before releasing them

Barack Obama moves to separate politics and science

As President Obama reversed the Bush administration's limits on embryonic stem-cell research, he said scientific decisions must be "based on facts, not ideology."

The president on Monday signaled a clear shift in tone from the Bush administration on a broad range of scientific issues.

Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Those siding with Bush say scientific advances allow researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told The Washington Post he thought Obama's policy reversal on stem-cell research was an "ideological sideshow."

"It is dangerous for the Obama administration to pick a wide series of fights," Gingrich told the newspaper. "Each of these fights simply drains energy away and increases the coalition which decides it has a collective interest in stopping everything."

Obama also signed a memorandum that directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy "to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making."

Obama's action is part of a broader effort to separate science and politics, White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said Sunday. Video Watch Rep. Chris Smith say Obama is "behind the times" »

But it's not just on the issue of stem cells where science and politics collide.

In his first weeks in office, Obama has taken ambitious steps to untangle what has been an intertwined relationship.

The Bush administration came under frequent criticism from environmentalists who warned the president wasn't doing enough to lessen what they saw as the damaging impact the United States has on the globe.

Within a week of taking office, Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to review a California application to regulate greenhouse gases and told his Department of Transportation to begin implementing fuel efficiency standards passed last year but not implemented by the Bush administration.

If the EPA grants a waiver allowing California to set its own emissions standards, the nation's most populous state will be allowed to require automakers to produce trucks and cars that get better mileage than what is required under the current national standard. Thirteen other states could take similar action.

The Bush administration rejected California's application, agreeing with automakers that the creation of another set of rules regarding pollution standards for some states would be confusing and unenforceable.

In Obama's recent speech to Congress, the president said the United States will double its supply of renewable energy in three years. To do so, he's calling on a new class of workers to be trained in environmental fields. Green jobs training programs will get $500 million from his stimulus package.

By 2025, the Obama administration hopes one-fourth of the nation's energy will come from renewable sources. Over the long term, the president hopes to create millions of new jobs by investing $150 billion in taxpayer money to help private companies develop new sources of clean energy, such as wind, solar and geothermal power.

While environmentalists are encouraged by Obama's focus on renewable energy and stricter emissions standards, some economists are skeptical he can pull the country out of the recession while cleaning up the planet. Read about Obama's balancing act

"Government can push new policies, but it has to prove to be economically competitive or else it will not happen," said Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment at Duke University.

In another break from the Bush administration, Obama last week overturned a regulation that many environmentalists claim weakened the Endangered Species Act.

The regulation, issued a few weeks before Bush left office, made it easier for federal agencies to skip consultations with government scientists before launching projects that could affect endangered wildlife.

By overturning the regulation, Obama said he had restored "the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations."

Obama hasn't shied away from talking about climate change. He campaigned on promises to eliminate oil imports from the Middle East, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent and create a green energy economy.

Bush, a onetime oil executive, was widely criticized for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which aimed to limit greenhouse gas concentrations.

When Bush delivered a speech on climate change that set up guidelines to slow growth of greenhouse gas emissions in April 2008, Democrats wrote it off as too little, too late.

Bush also came under fire after the White House acknowledged in 2003 that it asked for revisions in a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. Critics said the revisions were made to play down the threat of global warming to humans as well as the ecology, but the Bush administration insisted that it was taking climate change seriously.

But even Sen. John McCain, the former Republican presidential nominee, tried to highlight his differences with Bush on environmental issues. He had a campaign ad emphasizing times he "stood up to the president" and "sounded the alarm on global warming."

Obama on Monday said his goal is "for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

While some have questioned his investments in science and energy, Obama has expressed confidence in his plan for "advancing the cause of science in America."

"By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs," he said. "And that is essential, not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity."

Hillary Clinton defends thaw with Russia

BRUSSELS, Mar 6: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says US re-engagement with Russia does not mean the US is giving way in its support for its allies, reports BBC.

Ahead of talks with her Russian counterpart, she told the BBC that Russia should have no veto over Nato expansion and no sphere of influence.
But she reiterated Washington''s desire to start afresh with Moscow.
She was speaking in Brussels, after meeting EU officials and taking questions from young Europeans.
On Thursday, Nato agreed to resume high-level contacts with Russia, especially regarding co-operation over the Nato mission in Afghanistan.
Mrs Clinton said that was an important decision that demonstrated a willingness to change how the West dealt with Russia.
" There was a rather confrontational approach towards Russia in the prior [US] administration "
"We''re going to press the reset button," she told the BBC''s Europe editor Mark Mardell.
"We have a long list, on both sides, of matters [where] we''re going to try to seek some areas of co-operation.
"Our efforts against terrorism, our efforts on behalf of arms control and non proliferation. Discuss areas where we think that we''ve got to understand each other better and try to eliminate the friction - energy security, climate change, things like that.
"But," she added, "there are areas where we just flat out disagree, and we''re not going to paper those over.
"We will not recognise the breakaway regions of Georgia, we do not recognise any sphere of influence on the part of Russia, and their having some sort of veto power over who can join the EU or Nato," she asserted.
Relations between the two nations have deteriorated in recent years over Russia''s role in the war in Georgia, American support for Georgia''s and Ukraine''s entry to Nato, and the planned US missile shield based in Central Europe.
Mrs Clinton put some of the blame for that deterioration on the preceding US government of President George W Bush.
"There was a rather confrontational approach towards Russia in the prior administration.

How much that contributed to Russian behaviour I think is a legitimate question to ask," she said.
Russia needs friends
Later on Friday she will hold a much-anticipated meeting with Russia''s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva.
Mr Obama said this week that he had sent a letter to Moscow linking Washington''s missile defence shield with Russia''s approach to Iran.
The US argument is that if Russia helps prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons, there will be no need for the US to build its European missile shield, which Russia opposes vehemently.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.
Mr Lavrov is likely to press other matters at the meeting, including Moscow''s desire for accelerated arms control talks.
A Russian foreign ministry spokesman was quoted on Friday saying Russia looked forward to the talks "with cautious optimism".
It is very different from a few months ago, when Russia was blaming America for everything from the global financial crisis to the war in Georgia, says the BBC''s Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow.
Russia is now in less of a mood to be belligerent, he says.
The financial crisis has left its economy severely battered, and right now it needs friends and investment, not a new cold war.
Earlier Mrs Clinton visited the European Union, where she was greeted by Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering.
She took questions from an audience of students and young people from EU and political institutions across Europe.
She was also due to meet the EU foreign policy "troika" of EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, and Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwartzenberg.

Taliban kill 2 US spies in Pakistan

MIRANSHAH, March 6: Taliban militants in Pakistan’s restive tribal area today killed two men they accused of spying for US forces stationed across the border in Afghanistan, officials said, reports AFP.

The bullet-riddled bodies of Afghan refugee Sher Khan and Pakistani tribal elder Nazar Jan were found early Friday at separate places in the North Waziristan tribal district bordering Afghanistan, officials in those areas said.
“Notes found with the bodies said the men were killed for spying for the US,” tribal police official Rukh Niaz Khan told AFP.
Islamist militants frequently kidnap and kill local tribesmen or Afghan refugees on charges of spying for the Pakistani government or US forces, who are battling a Taliban-led insurgency across the border in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s rugged tribal regions have been wracked by violence since becoming a stronghold for hundreds of Taliban and al-Qaeda rebels who fled across the border to escape the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.

President Obama Hosts Health Reform Summit

The purpose of the event was ostensibly to bring various stakeholders together to discuss ideas about how to reduce healthcare spending and improve health insurance coverage. And indeed, representatives of many interest groups were present, from insurers to private companies to patient advocacy groups, as well as dozens of elected officials. (Even the single-payer advocates got an invite to the summit, albeit a tardy one, I'm told.)

But no one I've talked with actually expected the summit to yield new insights. "[The participants] don't need to talk to each other," says Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. "They all know where they stand."

Rather, this event was a chance for the president to showcase his commitment to healthcare reform and, not incidentally, demonstrate that his administration isn't going to make the same mistakes that the Clintons did, when a small group of people negotiated a plan behind closed doors. This process, we could clearly see, is open and inclusive.

As for the invitees—nearly 100 of them by my count—they got to show their constituents and the rest of the world their willingness to work with the Obama administration and each other. "Everybody's making nice, and that's fine," says Len Nichols, director of the health policy program at the New America Foundation. "I'm all for making nice."

Of course, at some point people will have to move beyond making nice and get down to negotiating details of a plan, especially if we're going to move forward with health reform this year, as Obama proposes. In his closing remarks, noting that Congress was eager to get moving on healthcare reform, Obama said, "I just want to be sure I don't get in the way of all of you moving forward." Maybe he plans to leave the nuts and bolts to Congress and continue in his role as cheerleader-in-chief. So far, the president hasn't shown much appetite for championing specific reforms, focusing instead on broad principles and goals. I hear there are several more of these summits planned around the country. There are worse things he could do.

Yaman Mengutuk Keputusan ICC Soal Presiden Sudan

Republik Yaman, Rabu, mengecam keputusan Mahkamah Pidana Internasional (ICC) untuk mengeluarkan surat perintah penangkapan terhadap Presiden Sudan Omar Umar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir.

Sebuah sumber resmi mengatakan kepada Saba "keputusan ini menunjukkan campur tangan berbahaya dalam urusan negara-negara Arab dan kedaulatannya dan tidak akan membantu terciptanya perdamaian di Darfur dan bahkan dapat mengancam keamanan di kawasan tersebut".

Pada saat Dewan Keamanan PBB dan ICC tidak melakukan tindakan konkrit untuk menuntut Israel sebagai penjahat perang atas pembantaian di Jalur Gaza, mereka tidak ragu menuding mereka yang berjuang menciptakan perdamaian dan stabilitas keamanan di negara mereka, kata sumber tersebut.

Sumber tersebut menambahkan Yaman menuntut Dewan Keamanan PBB yang membawa masalah Darfur ke ICC untuk kembali mempertimbangkan prosedur yang tidak adil itu dan mengaktifkan pasal 16 perjanjian ICC guna menciptakan stabilitas keamanan di Sudan dan kawasan tersebut

China Akan Memperbaharui Persenjataan Perang Mereka

China akan memperbaharui sistem persenjataan, perlengkapan, dan dukungan logistik militer di seluruh wilayahnya disamping juga akan meningkatkan penelitian yang ada kaitannya dengan pertahanan.

"Kita akan melakukan modernisasi dan perlengkapan di seluruh wilayah," kata PM Wen Jiabao dalam pidatonya saat pembukaan Sesi Kedua Kongres Rakyat Nasional (NPC) ke-11, di Gedung Balai Agung Rakyat, Beijing, Kamis.

Hadir dalam acara tahunan itu antara lain Presiden Hu Jintao, Ketua Majelis Permusyawaratan Politik Rakyat China (CPPCC) Jia Qinglin, Ketua NPC Wu Bangguou, serta para petinggi Partai Komunis China (CPC).

Menurutnya, tahun lalu China telah melakukan kemajuan penting dalam memodernisasi pertahanan dan angkatan darat dan Tentara Pembebasan Rakyat (PLA) telah memainkan peranan penting dalam menjaga kedaulatan China, keamanan, serta integritas teritorial.

Untuk itu, kata Wen, dalam tahun mendatang, China memerlukan perubahan lagi di tubuh angkatan darat, memodernisasi dan menstandarisasi dalam era modern.

China, kata Wen, juga akan menstanformasi secara efektif pelatihan militer dengan menerapkan sejumlah teknologi informasi yang handal dalam upaya meningkatkan kemampuan kemajuan militer di dalam negeri.

Selain akan meningkatkan kemampuan kekuatan militernya, China kata Wen, juga akan memperbaiki kekuatan polisi rakyat agar mampu menangani sejumlah masalah dengan lebih baik, memerangi terorisme dan menjaga keamanan.

"Kami akan memperkuat serta membangun kesatuan antara tentara dan pemerintah serta tenrara dengan masyarakat," kata Wen.

Jurubicara Sesi kedua NPC Ke-11 Li Zhaoxing mengatakan bahwa anggaran pertahanan China tahun 2009 alami kenaikan sebesar 14,9 persen dibanding tahun sebelumnya, tapi kenaikan itu bukan ditujukan untuk memperkuat sistem pertahanan sehingga negara lain tidak perlu merasa terancam.

"Adanya kenaikan anggaran pertahanan China bukan merupakan suatu bentuk ancaman bagi negara lain," katanya.

Dikatakan, anggaran pertahanan China tahun ini mencapai 480,69 miliar yuan atau sekitar 70 miliar dolar AS, naik 62,48 miliar yuan dibanding tahun sebelumnya.

Meskipun terdapat kenaikan anggaran pertahanan, katanya, tapi jumlah tersebut besarnya hanya 6,3 persen dari total belanja keuangan negara selama 2009.

Ditegaskan bahwa peningkatan anggaran pertahanan China tersebut tujuan utamanya adalah bukan untuk memperkuat sistem pertahanan, tapi lebih diutamakan untuk memberikan kesejahteraan kepada para prajurit, seperti dengan menaikkan gaji, meningkatkan subsidi, sehingga kehidupan prajurit bisa lebih sejahtera.

"Kenaikan anggaran juga untuk pembelanjaan dan pembelian sejumlah perlengkapan dan pembangunan fasilitas dalam upaya meningkatkan kemampuan kekuatan angkatan bersenjata untuk pertahanan nasional," katanya.

Selain itu, China juga akan melakukan rekonstruksi sejumlah fasilitas militer di Sichuan yang rusak akibat gempa yang melanda tahun 2008 di wilayah itu.

Kenaikan anggaran pertahanan China tersebut, diklaim Zhaoxing, sebagai hal yang wajar dan bahkan masih rendah dibanding anggaran belanja negara-negara lainnya.

Dia menyebutkan bahwa pengeluaran anggaran pertahanan China selama 2008 hanya sebesar 1,4 persen dari produk domestik bruto (GDP), sementara Amerika Serikat empat persen dan negara lain seperti Inggris dan Prancis mencapai dua persen

Pembangkit Nuklir Iran Beroperasi kembali

selatan Iran, Bushehr, untuk pertama kali akan menghasilkan 500 megawat, ungkap kantor berita resmi Iran IRNA mengutip Menteri Luar Negeri Manouchehr Mottaki kepada parlemen.

"Karena bahan bakar untuk pembangkit listrik itu terdapat di Iran, maka proyek tersebut akan mulai beroperasi pada musim panas (kwartal yang berakhir September) dan menghasilkan 500 megawat listrik yang akan dipasok ke jaringan nasional," katanya.

Pembangkit akan beroperasi penuh pada paruh kedua tahun anggaran Iran pada Maret 2010, katanya.

Tenaga ahli Iran dan Rusia mulai melakukan uji coba terhadap pembangkit tersebut pada 25 Februari.

Moskow memasok bahan bakar untuk pembangkit tersebut pada 2008 namun pasokan tersebut kini disita Badan Energi Atom Internasional yang telah melakukan penyelidikan terhadap proyek nuklir Iran selama enam tahun.

Sergei Kiriyenko, kepala badan nuklir federal di Moskow, mengumumkan pada saat uji coba tersebut bahwa pembangunan pembangkit tersebut telah selesai namun ia tidak bisa memastikan kapan proyek tersebut akan diresmikan.

Uji coba terhadap pembangkit tenaga nuklir Bushehr telah memicu keprihatinan baru dari masyarakat internasional atas proyek nuklir Iran meskipuan Teheran mengatakan program nukilirnya murni untuk kepentingan damai.

Pada Selasa, lima anggota tetap Dewan Keamanan PBB dan Jerman mengatakan dalam pernyataan bersama bahwa mereka siap melakukan pembicaraan langsung dengan Iran untuk menyelesaikan kebuntuan dalam masalah proyek nuklir Iran

The first BlackBerry president is america

President Barack Hussein Obama, as he will be tomorrow, has changed everything about America already - not just by being what he is but by being who he is. He is not just the first black president. He is the first BlackBerry president.

When George W. Bush hit the campaign trail in 2000, the precious possession he brought with him from home was his feather pillow. The theme of the Bush years was obliviousness. The outgoing President was famously unavailable for debate. He was deaf to countervailing voices. He hit the sack early and always got a good night's sleep.

What the pillow was to Mr Bush the BlackBerry is to Mr Obama. Mr Bush couldn't wait to turn in; Mr Obama can't bear to tune out. It's richly symbolic that Mr Obama has been resisting the security agencies' attempts to pry his fingers from around his beloved electronic device. His fight to keep his BlackBerry shows how strongly he doesn't want to be cut off. He wants to stay in touch with the advisers and friends who can bypass the gatekeepers. (C u meet me at the g8 fr coffee 2nite?)

It always seemed to me ironic that the McCain campaign kept referring sneeringly to the young senator's meagre resumé - a mere community organiser! - before he entered electoral politics. It was Mr Obama's experience as a community organiser that proved such a killer application when he allied that skill to the internet. Those 12 million volunteers were literally conjured out of the air. Not only could he deploy his web army to distribute his leaflets, raise his funds and sell his policies, he could speak directly to them whenever he hit a snag. When he accepted the Democratic nomination in Mile High Stadium, tens of thousands held up their glowing mobile phones like candles at a rock concert.

But Mr Obama was not just ahead of the curve in the way he understood the web. He was also the harbinger of a societal shift that is being played out before our eyes in the economic meltdown. He understood instinctively that the old structures - in his case, the structures of politics - had to be broken down and reassembled if we are to compete in the new world.

The same will prove true of business. The election delivered a seismic shock not just to the political world but to the suits at the top of Fortune 500 corporations. Call it the Obama effect - a sudden hunger for creativity and innovation, a recognition that we have to be less massive and more nimble. It came too late for some, of course, as almost simultaneously we saw the sclerotic auto companies collapsing before us. The mantra of the next decade will be more consensual, less top-down, more cellular, less gigantic. By the end of this new presidential era every CEO who boasts that he has no time to use the internet will be gone.

The new President's biggest cultural impact could be to reverse the anti-intellectual atmosphere that reached its apogee under Bush the younger. Mr Obama's John Coltrane cool allows him to get away with being a nerd. Being brainy, being a wonk, is allowable when the package is lean and effortlessly hip, with serious eyes and a movie-star smile. He could make it fashionable to be book-smart after years of Hollywood depictions of the kid in the class with his nose in a book as a hopeless loser. (There's already a mini-cult building around his lead speechwriter, Jon Favreau, who is all of 27.)

Would Mr Obama have been able to pull this off if he were white? Seems unlikely. His literary prowess, preference for salads over steaks and refined intelligence would have damned him as one of the dreaded liberal elite. As President he can appoint a Cabinet of overcredentialed brainiacs from Harvard.

At the same time, Mr Obama can say things to his African-American supporters that no white leader ever could. He listens to Jay-Z on his iPod, dances without biting his lower lip and can sink a three-point basketball shot on the first try. His formidable wife is unmistakably black. That makes it OK for him to declare to a black voter: “Brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on.” It's in such personal exchanges with his base that the Obama cultural shift is likely to be most potent.

America is now besotted with the images of the Obama family, those two enchanting little girls in their spic-and-span dresses, holding hands with their proud, statuesque mother and their father. Michelle Obama may prove to be the most fully realised First Lady ever. She seems to have resolved with Obamian grace the torment of modern women: how to juggle work and family. Unlike Hillary Clinton she doesn't strive to compete with her husband because she doesn't have to. But unlike Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush she leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that she can. She's just chilling for a while until the kids find their feet. She seems to be telling a nation of frazzled women: you're allowed to breathe.

Sensible of the comparisons perhaps to Kennedy's Camelot that promoted the arts at the White House, Mr Obama said in a TV interview in December that he wants to highlight the diversity of American culture, inviting jazz musicians and classical musicians and poets to perform for his guests. “Historically,” he mused, “what has always brought us through hard times is that national character, that sense of optimism, that willingness to look forward, that sense that better days are ahead.”

The whole world prays that that sense will be proved true. It has a better chance now that President Barack Hussein Obama has broken the dark spell of the Bush years and pledged to return America to itself.

Wi-fi ?

Students at Canada's Lakehead University have to be careful how they connect to the internet because wi-fi is banned on large parts of the campus.
University president Fred Gilbert, whose academic interests include wildlife management, environmental studies and natural resources science, is worried about the health impact of the 2.4Ghz radio waves used by wireless networks

Last year he decided to adopt the precautionary principle and refused to allow wi-fi in those areas that have what he calls "hard wire connectivity" until it is proved to be safe.

Mr Gilbert believes that "microwave radiation in the frequency range of wi-fi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier, cause behavioural changes, alter cognitive functions, activate a stress response, interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance, etc., and cause single and double strand DNA breaks".

Unfortunately the science says he is wrong, and his students are suffering as a result.

Smog talk

While the heating effects of high exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be damaging, the power levels of wireless connections are much lower than the microwave ovens and mobile phones which share the frequency range, and treating them in the same way is the worst sort of scaremongering.

Yet Mr Gilbert is not alone.


Bill Thompson
While those who want to limit the use of wi-fi argue that they need evidence that is it safe, the problem with trying to prove that something is safe is that you can't.
In 2003 parents sued a primary school in Chicago because it had dared to provide children with easy access to computing resources over a wireless network.

And there are a number of pressure groups, campaigning organisations and ill-informed individuals who believe that wireless networks pose a threat to health and want to see them closed down.

Now it seems they have been joined by the editor of the UK newspaper the Independent on Sunday, which this weekend filled its front page with a call for research into the "electronic smog" that is permeating the nation's schools and damaging growing children's' brains.

An accompanying editorial with the even-handed headline "high-tech horrors" called for an official inquiry, while the article outlining the perceived dangers asked "Is the wi-fi revolution a health time bomb?"

The answer, of course, is "no".

That will not stop the newspaper stoking up a wave of opposition to one of the most liberating technologies to have come out of the hi-tech revolution, limiting children's access to networked computers at schools and even blocking plans to develop municipal wireless networks in our towns and cities.

School children using computer, BBC
Wi-fi has been removed from some UK schools
If the journalists were really concerned about the dangers of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on the sensitive brains of the young, they should be calling for the closure of TV and radio transmission towers rather than asking us to turn off our wi-fi laptops.

The modulated frequencies that carry Radio 4 and ITV into our homes are just as powerful as the wireless networks, and a lot more pervasive.

And my wireless network is only carrying data when I'm online, while Radio 3 burbles all day long, possibly exciting electrons in my brain and causing headaches.

Then there is the danger from photons of visible light streaming down onto us as we work, since these carry more energy than microwaves and could surely do more damage.

Perhaps we should demand that our children work in the dark.

Test programme

The fuss over wi-fi is the latest manifestation of a general worry about electromagnetic radiation, one whose concerns have ranged over the years from the fields around power transmission lines to the radiation emitted by computer monitors to the microwaves put out by mobile phones.

Campaigners are often supported by those who claim to be so sensitive to electromagnetic radiation that they cannot bear to have a radio turned on in the same room because the fields affect their brains, or those who claim that using a mobile phone gives them headaches.

Test tubes, SPL
Science is about proving theories wrong, not right said Karl Popper
Unfortunately studies like that of James Rubin from the Institute of Psychiatry indicate that such people are just as likely to get a headache when they believe there is a phone signal present even if it is in fact absent, and other research into electromagnetic sensitivity is equally negative.

There is no evidence that electromagnetic radiation at radio frequencies, where the energy levels are too low to dislodge electrons and affect molecular bonding, can cause health effects except by heating tissues.

While those who want to limit the use of wi-fi argue that they need evidence that is it safe, the problem with trying to prove that something is safe is that you can't.

Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, helped us to understand that science is about falsification, about setting up hypotheses and theories and proving them wrong, because you can never prove them right.

Any theory can be overturned by new evidence, and any claim that wireless networks are completely safe could be thrown out tomorrow if we find good evidence that it isn't.

We may come up with a hitherto unsuspected mechanism that explains a previously disregarded effect, or the evidence may be statistical and require detailed investigation.

Were that to happen we should take it seriously, but it has not happened and there is no reason to believe it will.

The precautionary principle, of avoiding exposure to unnecessary risk, does not apply here because there is no known mechanism by which wireless networks could cause damage.

We have a sound model of the interaction between electromagnetic radiation and organic matter that gives us little reason to believe that there will be any dangers.

For William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency and a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, to argue for an investigation on the basis of no real evidence that there is an effect, and in the absence of any plausible physical mechanism, is indefensible.

Cellphones heat the brain and could cause problems. Wi-fi doesn't, and it is safe. My daughter is sitting here as I write, her new wireless laptop beside her, and I'm a lot more worried about the damage she would do if she dropped it on her foot than I am about the impact of the low power radio waves it emits.